User talk:Lucifuge Rofacale
Welcome to Memory Alpha, Lucifuge Rofacale! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thanks for your edit to the Khan Noonien Singh page! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out: * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and policies, the editing guidelines, our point of view, copyrights and guidelines for proper etiquette. * includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha. * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create. * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles. * is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday. * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs. * Look up past changes you have made in your log. * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own . * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your . One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! -- Shran (Talk) 12:12, 1 June 2009 :The above named user is the most currently available administrator to contribute to Memory Alpha; their signature was automatically added by User:Wikia. If you have any immediate questions or concerns, you may contact that user through their talk page. Recent edit I hated to undo your edit but you might want to read What Memory Alpha is not to help you in future edits on this site. Thanks :) — Morder 12:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :Well if speculation, synthesis and original research aren't allowed then the website's doomed before it's even started. --Lucifuge Rofacale 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::Yep, this site is doomed... it'll never last more than, oh, say, five and a half years. ;) -- Renegade54 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :I should imagine not much longer. --Lucifuge Rofacale 15:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::Only time will tell, I guess... but the policies have been the same since the inception of MA, and it seems to have thrived up to this point despite those policies - or, perhaps, because of them? -- Renegade54 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :Policies leave less room for creativity, which is after all what Wikia is about. People come to Wikia to escape the persecution they receive for their artistic merit on Wikipedia. If Wikis start using impossible policies forbidding synthesis, original research and speculation which are after all what made the Human race great, then it will rightly decrease in popularity, perhaps not for a while but eventually and inevitably. The website that is, not the Human race. --Lucifuge Rofacale 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :::RE: Lucifuge Rofacale. You know, there are underlying philosophies governing how this site is run. Your blanket statement doesn't seem to address any of them and I would interpret that it therefore dismisses them. By what measure do you presume to judge the policies used on MA as "impossible" to work with and that they will lead to the inevitable doom of the website.? --Hribar 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :Forgive me my frustration. I can tend to get a bit melodramatic. It's just that Wikipedia started in much the same way and it was doing quite well for a while until a certain group of fanatics became obsessed with the very same policies that govern this website. Said fanatics began mercilessly enforcing total compliance with these policies on every user on Wikipedia and as their power grew, so too did their numbers until today they utterly dominate Wikipedia. None dare challenge them though some whisper tongue-in-cheek rumours about a "cabal." But they have a name, these zealots, these empire-building, wannabe tin-pot dictators: deletionists. My fear is that this website will fall victim to the same terrible fate. --Lucifuge Rofacale 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ::I have to admit frustration with Wikipedia for the exact same reason you state above. A case in point, the Wikipedia article on Memory Alpha has been nominated for deletion at least five times now. The deletionists on WP, though, seem to be focused on notability, versus speculation and original research, which, as far as I know, WP has had policies against from the very beginning (or very nearly so). ::Please keep in mind that, far from being deletionists (at least in the sense I've outlined above), we at MA tend to be inclusionists. We like any little bit, no matter how notable, as long as it's canon. As an encyclopedia, we stick to the "facts" (as they exist in the Trek universe). It's really no different than any other encyclopedia (or dictionary, for that matter): how much speculation or original research content do you find on, say, dictionary.com, or britannica.com? -- Renegade54 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :::Thank you for your counsel. You're probably right. --Lucifuge Rofacale 18:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) :::I would also point out that this may not be the venue where you would want your artistic expression to play out. Even if what you wrote on Khan were allowable I think that in the end it would have undergone such significant change (do to open editing) that you probably wouldn't like anymore. :::On the other hand you'd be suprised how creative you could be here. As far as encyclopedia's go there is a lot of room for clever and original narration for someone who know's how to work the rules. Just make sure you learn the rules. I would also encourage you to study the underlying philosophies from which the rules were derived. MA isn't just about the cold statement of facts. If it were then all the articles would just be sets of bullet points.--Hribar 02:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ::::Thank you very much but I don't see what was so wrong about the section I added to the Khan article. It was an astonishingly accurate assessment of the character. --Lucifuge Rofacale 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The simplest reason is that it's because it's your assessment you may think you're right and others may thing you're wrong. Then someone else might wright a different assessment all together and replace yours, then which one do we keep? By not allowing such original research or speculation we prevent this type of disagreement and we also limit ourselves to the facts - which are easier to validate than your opinions on a particular character. We also keep the pages clean. If we have your assessment others will want theirs there too, and we can't have a page filled with 1000 differing opinions on who Khan is. — Morder 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :::::You're right of course. Just out of mild curiosity, did you disagree with my observations, Morder? --Lucifuge Rofacale 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)